|
|
Post by captainjapan on Jul 6, 2023 10:32:09 GMT -6
Wasn't Phoebe Waller-Bridge (Helena) the same person who Daniel Craig partnered with to kill off James Bond in the last movie? Oh Lord, how I hated that ending!.
|
|
|
|
Post by Piper on Jul 6, 2023 13:02:30 GMT -6
. I do wonder though: how is a film which grossed ~85% of opening weekend projections ($60M of $70M) already a "bomb"? Or is the $70M lowered from some pre-Cannes estimate? AIUI the film budget was astronomical so the box office would have to be equally impressive and maintain a high number of ticket sales. The film has a good but not great opening weekend and dropped off sharply in the days following. So, basically? I’ve read the blame at least partially with spiraling costs associated with bigger, better, and more of them special effects. |
|
|
|
Post by Piper on Jul 6, 2023 13:08:51 GMT -6
Wasn't Phoebe Waller-Bridge (Helena) the same person who Daniel Craig partnered with to kill off James Bond in the last movie? Oh Lord, how I hated that ending!. She was also the sassy droid who (that?) was Lando’s co-pilot in “Solo: A Star Wars Story.” |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jul 6, 2023 14:11:42 GMT -6
I do wonder though: how is a film which grossed ~85% of opening weekend projections ($60M of $70M) already a "bomb"? Or is the $70M lowered from some pre-Cannes estimate? It cost over $300 million to make. It has to make at least $600m to break even. Compare it to Crystal Skull which broke $100m on opening weekend when ticket prices were half what they are now. BTW. I may have came out strong with the negatives, but it is not a bad movie. It is just kind of meh. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jul 6, 2023 14:13:56 GMT -6
Wasn't Phoebe Waller-Bridge (Helena) the same person who Daniel Craig partnered with to kill off James Bond in the last movie? Oh Lord, how I hated that ending!. She was also the sassy droid who (that?) was Lando’s co-pilot in “Solo: A Star Wars Story.” What? That robot was the only thing I couldn't stand about Solo, otherwise the movie wasn't that bad. I mean the lead didn't have the gravitas to pull off Han Solo, but that robot was obnoxious. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jul 6, 2023 14:16:15 GMT -6
. I do wonder though: how is a film which grossed ~85% of opening weekend projections ($60M of $70M) already a "bomb"? Or is the $70M lowered from some pre-Cannes estimate? AIUI the film budget was astronomical so the box office would have to be equally impressive and maintain a high number of ticket sales. The film has a good but not great opening weekend and dropped off sharply in the days following. So, basically? I’ve read the blame at least partially with spiraling costs associated with bigger, better, and more of them special effects. Yeah, it had a horrible development. Filming started before the lockdown, was shut down. Then Harrison Ford got injured on set and the production was delayed again. And then, despite what the director is claiming, they reshot the ending because of poor test audience reaction. (this has been confirmed by multiple sources). So the cost spiraled out of control. |
|
rhialto
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 128
|
Post by rhialto on Jul 6, 2023 14:42:46 GMT -6
I do wonder though: how is a film which grossed ~85% of opening weekend projections ($60M of $70M) already a "bomb"? Or is the $70M lowered from some pre-Cannes estimate? It cost over $300 million to make. It has to make at least $600m to break even. Compare it to Crystal Skull which broke $100m on opening weekend when ticket prices were half what they are now. BTW. I may have came out strong with the negatives, but it is not a bad movie. It is just kind of meh. I think I understand the ~2x production cost a film needs to gross to break even, I just don't follow the logic of what looks like a decent opening weekend and "it's a flop already". Maybe the projections are "this is the lowest amount it needs to open at or it's a flop", based on past metrics? And no worries on the strong negatives, I've seen much worse takedowns of it. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jul 6, 2023 15:57:20 GMT -6
It cost over $300 million to make. It has to make at least $600m to break even. Compare it to Crystal Skull which broke $100m on opening weekend when ticket prices were half what they are now. BTW. I may have came out strong with the negatives, but it is not a bad movie. It is just kind of meh. I think I understand the ~2x production cost a film needs to gross to break even, I just don't follow the logic of what looks like a decent opening weekend and "it's a flop already". Maybe the projections are "this is the lowest amount it needs to open at or it's a flop", based on past metrics? And no worries on the strong negatives, I've seen much worse takedowns of it. According to those who follow these things and are experts at running the numbers this movie will lose money. John Carter did better than this movie and was called the biggest flop of all time. $73,078,100 on opening with a smaller budget. I waste too much time paying attention to the business side of movies, when I should spend more time gaming, writing, and drawing. |
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Jul 6, 2023 22:54:05 GMT -6
and it's gotten UNIVERSAL praise across all social media from people who have seen it. Audience scores on Rotten Tomatoes are 88% positive. I have yet to see this universal praise. Rotten Tomatoes lost any credibility years ago when they bowed to pressure from big studios to modify their calculations in their favor. It has a 6.9 on IMDB which puts it in the same company as the universally chided film Jurassic World. Despite this "universal praise" it is looking to be one of the biggest bombs in film history. Anyways, no point in debating what is ultimately a very subjective topic. I'm glad you liked it. I'm planning to rewatch the original Indy trilogy with my kids this weekend. Cheers. "Universally chided film" Jurassic World? I only ever heard good things about Jurassic World, and I liked it well enough myself. Now if you had said Jurassic World 3, I would have agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jul 6, 2023 23:46:47 GMT -6
I have yet to see this universal praise. Rotten Tomatoes lost any credibility years ago when they bowed to pressure from big studios to modify their calculations in their favor. It has a 6.9 on IMDB which puts it in the same company as the universally chided film Jurassic World. Despite this "universal praise" it is looking to be one of the biggest bombs in film history. Anyways, no point in debating what is ultimately a very subjective topic. I'm glad you liked it. I'm planning to rewatch the original Indy trilogy with my kids this weekend. Cheers. "Universally chided film" Jurassic World? I only ever heard good things about Jurassic World, and I liked it well enough myself. Now if you had said Jurassic World 3, I would have agreed. ok, other movies with a 6.9: Last Jedi, Solo, Dr. Strange MoM |
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Jul 6, 2023 23:56:46 GMT -6
"Universally chided film" Jurassic World? I only ever heard good things about Jurassic World, and I liked it well enough myself. Now if you had said Jurassic World 3, I would have agreed. ok, other movies with a 6.9: Last Jedi, Solo, Dr. Strange MoM All that tells me is that critics don't know what they're talking about. Last Jedi was 0/10, Solo was a solid B, and Dr. Strange 2 was still like a high C, maybe C+ movie. Edit: Since you mentioned you get your ratings on imdb, I checked them out - they also only gave Tropic Thunder a 7.1 and and that's easily among the top 5 best comedies of the last 20 years. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jul 7, 2023 2:40:13 GMT -6
ok, other movies with a 6.9: Last Jedi, Solo, Dr. Strange MoM All that tells me is that critics don't know what they're talking about. Last Jedi was 0/10, Solo was a solid B, and Dr. Strange 2 was still like a high C, maybe C+ movie. Edit: Since you mentioned you get your ratings on imdb, I checked them out - they also only gave Tropic Thunder a 7.1 and and that's easily among the top 5 best comedies of the last 20 years. I was just using IMDB as an example vs. Rotten Tomatoes. I think all these review sites can be gamed by studios, and many of my favorite movies get terrible reviews and many movies I can't stand get praised. It is all so subjective. Like 13th Warrior was absolutely lambasted by all the critics, including Roger Ebert who you'd think would "get it", and that movie is awesome. A classic. I'm regretting even posting this review, I was just so bummed about the movie I felt like expressing my thoughts. But then some people loved it, so good for them. |
|
rhialto
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 128
|
Post by rhialto on Jul 7, 2023 3:44:31 GMT -6
I waste too much time paying attention to the business side of movies, when I should spend more time gaming, writing, and drawing. Well, that is a fact, and not an opinion...  |
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Jul 7, 2023 4:43:29 GMT -6
The money men must know this is a loss, before it left the gate. But they may be releasing it merely to recoup partial expenses.
Due to its costs, it sounds like a film which needed to be canceled multiple times, but has such a legacy it was impossible to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Punkrabbitt on Jul 7, 2023 15:20:43 GMT -6
I think there is a bit of movie fatigue that is causing audience disappointment. There has been so much over the top stories, acting, and special effects that initially awed people that a lot are still chasing that initial rush and even the same level of wow factor isn't bringing it. We've had so much magic that the magic is gone. I've missed seeing all the movies I was excited about for last couple of years before I just feel burnt out on visual media. That used to be a thing for my wife and I, but lately it just hasn't been there for us. Of interst, she has recently watched the original three Star Wars movies again while I have been at work. We have all the streaming, but the stuff from the 70s and 80s has proven more interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jul 7, 2023 15:41:48 GMT -6
The money men must know this is a loss, before it left the gate. But they may be releasing it merely to recoup partial expenses. Due to its costs, it sounds like a film which needed to be canceled multiple times, but has such a legacy it was impossible to do so. I lot of blame is being put on Kathleen Kennedy, while I don't care for her management of two of the most important franchises in my life, the cost overruns on this Indy film aren't all her fault, no one could have predicted the covid lockdown or Harrison Ford getting injured on set. If that hadn't happened this movie would have at least broken even or turned a bit of profit. |
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Jul 7, 2023 18:58:03 GMT -6
I'm regretting even posting this review, I was just so bummed about the movie I felt like expressing my thoughts. But then some people loved it, so good for them. I don't think there was anything wrong with your review, I'm happy to hear what more people think. It's just a couple of the subsequent posts which I thought were making overly broad generalizations and didn't ring true to me. But I certainly wasn't looking to stifle discussion. The money men must know this is a loss, before it left the gate. But they may be releasing it merely to recoup partial expenses. Due to its costs, it sounds like a film which needed to be canceled multiple times, but has such a legacy it was impossible to do so. I mean, they must have held out some hope that it'd be successful, even if it was just wishful thinking. If they truly knew and had fully admitted to themselves that it was going to be a loss, they would have canceled it and taken it as a tax write off. |
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Jul 8, 2023 8:28:24 GMT -6
I mean, they must have held out some hope that it'd be successful, even if it was just wishful thinking. If they truly knew and had fully admitted to themselves that it was going to be a loss, they would have canceled it and taken it as a tax write off. Agreed, but there may always be more money in releasing it than in a tax benefit. Movies like this usually aren't created to benefit the legacy of the franchise (maybe somewhat). It's a financial venture and it went south. They chose to release it. If they hadn't, there would likely have been some serious fan backlash. |
|
skars
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 407
|
Post by skars on Jul 8, 2023 12:09:35 GMT -6
Disney has ruined every single great property they have touched in the last 15 years- ERB/JC, Marvel, Star Wars, and now IJ. That's the nicest way for me to put it, as what I would like to say about them would get me banned. AFAIC, Temple of Doom is a perfect D&D RPG adventure and better D&D film than any of the D&D movies could ever hope to be. It may be my favorite of the IJ series. George Lucas took a dump on Star Wars and most of those franchises of his long before Disney came along. But, that's not to say Disney has been good to them either. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 8, 2023 13:09:11 GMT -6
I think there is a bit of movie fatigue that is causing audience disappointment. There has been so much over the top stories, acting, and special effects that initially awed people that a lot are still chasing that initial rush and even the same level of wow factor isn't bringing it. We've had so much magic that the magic is gone. I've missed seeing all the movies I was excited about for last couple of years before I just feel burnt out on visual media. That used to be a thing for my wife and I, but lately it just hasn't been there for us. Of interest, she has recently watched the original three Star Wars movies again while I have been at work. We have all the streaming, but the stuff from the 70s and 80s has proven more interesting. I agree with this. I was watching the commercial for the latest "Fast and Furious" movie and the car stunts are just astounding. Sadly, they are all done with CGI and no practical effects. I almost wish there was a law that said you can't put something in a movie without proving that it can be done, but that would wipe out all scifi/fantasy movies. (No warp drive, no magic, no movies.) |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jul 8, 2023 20:22:09 GMT -6
George Lucas took a dump on Star Wars and most of those franchises of his long before Disney came along. But, that's not to say Disney has been good to them either. I can't believe I've become a prequels defender but...George was sincere and he was trying to make good Star Wars movies, and they at least have artistic consistency. And if you watched Clone Wars there was some fantastic storytelling and world building if you could look past the style. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 9, 2023 7:15:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 9, 2023 7:22:07 GMT -6
Disney has ruined every single great property they have touched in the last 15 years- ERB/JC, Marvel, Star Wars, and now IJ. That's the nicest way for me to put it, as what I would like to say about them would get me banned. AFAIC, Temple of Doom is a perfect D&D RPG adventure and better D&D film than any of the D&D movies could ever hope to be. It may be my favorite of the IJ series. George Lucas took a dump on Star Wars and most of those franchises of his long before Disney came along. But, that's not to say Disney has been good to them either. I was quite miffed at George during the prequel era (and for the Special editions) , and when I heard Disney was buying them, I was happy and completely sure they would "restore" the property. I promoted them on various forums on line as cavalry coming to save the day. Maybe even here. I may never have been more wrong in my life. I came to appreciate certain parts of the prequels over the years. Raising my Son on SW he eventually convinced me to show them to him and his child age enjoyment of them softened me up a bit. Just a bit though. That said,he's an adult now, has some reservations about the prequels, and also completely hates everything Disney has done except for R1. As an aside, I actually like the John Carter movie, even if I don't like how they eviscerated the character of John Carter to make him sanitary for a modern audience. What a shame, because the movie was beautiful to watch. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jul 9, 2023 7:40:22 GMT -6
That said, he's an adult now, has some reservations about the prequels, and also completely hates everything Disney has done except for R1. There are only four Star Wars movies: 1. Star Wars (1977) 2. The Empire Strikes Back (1980) 3. Return of the Jedi (1983) 4. Rogue One (2016)  |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 9, 2023 8:29:45 GMT -6
That said, he's an adult now, has some reservations about the prequels, and also completely hates everything Disney has done except for R1. There are only four Star Wars movies: 1. Star Wars (1977) 2. The Empire Strikes Back (1980) 3. Return of the Jedi (1983) 4. Rogue One (2016) R1 is by far the best of the Disney movies, with a few really good bits. But I don't personally feel it is up there with the Original Trilogy, even at 4th place. It and the prequels are in another lesser tier..where possibly R1 sits at the top. All IMO of course. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 9, 2023 8:33:59 GMT -6
I came to appreciate certain parts of the prequels over the years. Raising my Son on SW he eventually convinced me to show them to him and his child age enjoyment of them softened me up a bit. Just a bit though. We probably should shift this to a Star Wars thread instead of hijacking the Indiana Jones one too much, but my story is that my kids grew up on the prequels so those are the ones they like the best. I think that half of my dislike for the prequels comes from interacting with folks on the internet, because some parts (like Jarjar) I don't remember hating that much at the time, but I think the hatred from others has tainted my view of that stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Jul 9, 2023 10:02:26 GMT -6
I came to appreciate certain parts of the prequels over the years. Raising my Son on SW he eventually convinced me to show them to him and his child age enjoyment of them softened me up a bit. Just a bit though. We probably should shift this to a Star Wars thread instead of hijacking the Indiana Jones one too much, but my story is that my kids grew up on the prequels so those are the ones they like the best. I think that half of my dislike for the prequels comes from interacting with folks on the internet, because some parts (like Jarjar) I don't remember hating that much at the time, but I think the hatred from others has tainted my view of that stuff. I think Jar Jar is fine in small doses. Really the issue with him is that Phantom Menace simply had way too much of him (and to a lesser extent, young Anakin), and that plus the sheer level of slapstick in a few key scenes shifted the tone of the entire film - honestly, if it hadn't been for Qui-Gon getting stabbed to death and Darth Maul getting cut in half during the climax, the balance of the movie probably could have been G-rated instead of PG - whereas the rest of the OT and prequels are much more targeted at a teen audience, with enough breadth of content to appeal to kids and adults as well. I was never bothered by Jar Jar's occasional appearances in Clones or Sith; they have some pacing issues with the overuse of "walking and talking" scenes, but I rewatch them both every now and then and enjoy them each time. Worst case scenario, I can always look down at my phone when they start to drag and then put my phone away when they get to the next good scene. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jul 9, 2023 18:57:48 GMT -6
There are only four Star Wars movies: 1. Star Wars (1977) 2. The Empire Strikes Back (1980) 3. Return of the Jedi (1983) 4. Rogue One (2016) R1 is by far the best of the Disney movies, with a few really good bits. But I don't personally feel it is up there with the Original Trilogy, even at 4th place. It and the prequels are in another lesser tier..where possibly R1 sits at the top. All IMO of course. While I agree with you, I've met enough people now who grew up with the prequels who love Star Wars, and that is their Star Wars, that I've made my peace with them. But I don't think anyone who grew up with Crystal Skull, or now Dial of Destiny, will love Indiana Jones like we do. -td |
|
Parzival
Level 6 Magician
Is a little Stir Crazy this year...
Posts: 399
|
Post by Parzival on Jul 10, 2023 8:39:11 GMT -6
I have decided not to see this film. I appreciate that some have liked it, and some have not. But I’ve come to the realization that my standard for sequels of great films is whether or not they measure up to be at least equal in greatness.
So, is this film as great as Raiders of the Lost Ark? My guess is that it is not; and my guess is that it never could be.
I don’t need or want to see Indy as an old man. I don’t need or want to see him die/get sent off to a home/shimmer into the after-life as a Force ghost or whatever “bittersweet” ending they came up with.
Indy to me is Indy on an adventure— clad in jacket and fedora, cracking his whip and dodging deadly traps while fending off bad guys and fighting for his one true love, Marion. I don’t want him to be anything else. He is young and alive and active, forever. Making him something else is and always has been a mistake.
Similarly, stabbing Han Solo with a lightsaber was the STUPIDEST move Disney ever made— and I don’t care that Harrison Ford refused to do the film without a death scene. At that point I would say, “Mr. Ford, you’re a great actor. You’ve created a character that hundreds of millions of children have loved and imagined being. And they don’t imagine being dead. Why would we want to kill that character for them? Why do we want to end that story? You can die in a hundred movies, Mr. Ford, if you want to. But we’re not killing off the imaginations of millions of young boys, no matter how good of an actor you are. The script is written. Han survives to fly off into space. You are certainly free to imagine his death however you wish. But Han Solo will never die on the screen or in the script. Now, if you can’t do the movie because of that, then I guess we won’t do the movie. Carrie’s in. Mark’s in. Anthony’s in. Peter’s in. Kenny’s in. But if you’re out, you’re out. Hope to work with you on another project.”
That’s my take— no matter what an actor wants, no matter what a director wants, hell, for that matter, no matter what an author wants, you don’t kill off a beloved character, especially just so you can have a grandiose death scene. “Always leave ‘em wanting more.” If the character is dead, there can be no “more.”
So, that’s my standard for all sequels, from here on out:
1.) As good as or better than the original.
2.) Beloved characters do not die for no good reason, and even then, be careful about it.
So IJ&tDoD is off my list.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jul 10, 2023 8:58:39 GMT -6
So, that’s my standard for all sequels, from here on out: 1.) As good as or better than the original. 2.) Beloved characters do not die for no good reason, and even then, be careful about it. That's a pretty high standard! No King Kong films after the original in 1933? No Godzilla films after the first one in 1954? No James Bond films after From Russia with Love in 1963? No Star Wars films after The Empire Strikes Back in 1980? Etc. |
|
